Epistemic Humility—Knowing Your Limits in a Pandemic

If you are successful in one field doesn't make one intelligent in another unless you meditate on the complexity of things and stop the urge to signal intelligence constantly. A beautiful and timely piece by Erik Angner: 

Being a true expert involves not only knowing stuff about the world but also knowing the limits of your knowledge and expertise. It requires, as psychologists say, both cognitive and metacognitive skills. The point is not that true experts should withhold their beliefs or that they should never speak with conviction. Some beliefs are better supported by the evidence than others, after all, and we should not hesitate to say so. The point is that true experts express themselves with the proper degree of confidence—meaning with a degree of confidence that’s justified given the evidence. 

Compare Epstein, Kushner, and Navarro’s swagger to medical statistician Robert Grant, who tweeted: 

“I’ve studied this stuff at university, done data analysis for decades, written several NHS guidelines (including one for an infectious disease), and taught it to health professionals. That’s why you don’t see me making any coronavirus forecasts.” 

The concept of epistemic humility is useful to describe the difference between these two kinds of character. Epistemic humility is an intellectual virtue. It is grounded in the realization that our knowledge is always provisional and incomplete—and that it might require revision in light of new evidence. Grant appreciates the extent of our ignorance under these difficult conditions; the other characters don’t. A lack of epistemic humility is a vice—and it can cause massive damage both in our private lives and in public policy. 

[---] 

If expertise does not protect against overconfidence, what does? Research in fact suggests one simple thing that everyone can do. It is to consider reasons that you may be wrong. If you want to reduce overconfidence in yourself or others, just ask: What are the reasons to think this claim may be mistaken? Under what conditions would this be wrong? Such questions are difficult, because we are much more used to searching for reasons we are right. But thinking through the ways in which we can fail helps reduce overconfidence and promotes epistemic humility. 

Again, it is fine and good to have opinions, and to express them in public—even with great conviction. The point is that true experts, unlike charlatans, express themselves in a way that mirrors their limitations. All of us who want to be taken seriously would do well to demonstrate the virtue of epistemic humility.